New Delhi: The Supreme Court on February 23, ruled that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory before registering an FIR against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court clarified that the accused does not have the right to demand a preliminary inquiry before an FIR is filed in corruption cases.
As per a report by Live Law, the Court noted, "It is clear that a preliminary inquiry is not essential for registering a case against a public servant accused of corruption. While such an inquiry may be beneficial in certain cases, it is neither a right of the accused nor a mandatory step before filing a criminal case."
In continuation of the report, the Top Court clarified that while a preliminary inquiry is not compulsory when information reveals a cognizable offence, it may be advisable based on the specific facts of the case to help determine if the offence is indeed cognizable.
It further stated that the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is not to assess the truthfulness of the information but to determine whether it indicates the commission of a cognizable offence. "The scope of such inquiry is naturally narrow and limited to prevent unnecessary harassment while simultaneously ensuring that genuine allegations of a cognizable offence are not stifled arbitrarily. Thus, the determination, whether a preliminary inquiry is necessary or not will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case," the Court added.
About the Case
The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal by the State of Karnataka against the High Court's decision to quash an FIR filed against a public servant in a disproportionate assets case. The FIR was registered by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically under Sections 13(1)(b), 12, and 13(2).
The HC's decision to quash the FIR prompted the state to take the matter to the SC. The key issue for the Court was whether a preliminary inquiry was mandatory before filing an FIR under the PC Act, or if the source information report could serve as a substitute for it.
The State argued before the SC that a preliminary inquiry isn't required if the source information report discloses a cognizable offence, adding that the Superintendent of Police had found a prima facie case. The Respondent-Public Servant, citing the Lalita Kumari case, argued that a preliminary inquiry is necessary in corruption cases to prevent frivolous complaints.
SC overturned the HC's ruling, reaffirming the law from CBI VS Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi. It held that the accused cannot demand a preliminary inquiry when the source information reveals a cognizable offence, and found the Respondent's reliance on Lalita Kumari misplaced, as that case left the inquiry decision to the discretion of the investigating agency.
